Posted on 01/10/2011 8:57:06 AM PST by cowboyway
“It followed that the large capital that had been accumulated in that trade, thus forcibly driven from commerce, betook itself to manufacturing, and the “free traders” of New England became clamorous for “protection.”
Since then the capital earned in commerce and in the slave-trade has enjoyed a monopoly of navigating, importing, and manufacturing for the South, getting large pay, swollen by protective duties, in the proceeds of slave-labor.
In the mean time, if the South had ceased to employ northern shipping for the importation of negroes, it began to furnish a much more extensive employment for it in the exportation of cotton.”
Southern Wealth And Northern Profits, As Exhibited In Statistical Facts ... By Thomas Prentice Kettell
It's an interesting suggestion that the entire South may have wanted to abolish importing more slaves even before 1808.
I had not heard it before, and doubt if it's true.
What may well be true is that certain slave-owning people in older states like Virginia wanted to end new imports -- so as to create a shortage of supply, and thus drive up the values of their own for-sale surplus slaves.
But I doubt if other slave-owners in newer states like Georgia and South Carolina would be so all-fired happy about paying higher prices to Virginians than they would for imported slaves.
bushpilot1: "Nearly 20 vessels from the harbors of the northern States are employed in the importation of negroes to Georgia and the West India isles."
The slave trade to the Caribbean, Central & South America continued for many years after it ended to the US.
And the numbers were huge.
For example: those 20 ships could have carried all the slaves for North America in, say, 1800.
It would take at least 600 similar ships to carry all the slaves coming from Africa to the Caribbean, Central & South America.
So US slave shipments amounted to about 3% of the total before they were legally discontinued in 1808.
But the main point to remember is: slavery in the North was phased out and abolished slowly, slowly, slowly over many years, and this is what the Abolitionist Republicans elected in 1860 expected to continue in the South.
And it is precisely that expectation which drove Deep South slave-holders to secede.
Protective tariff were indeed quite high, before 1830 reaching about 50%.
But this was during a time when Southerners generally controlled both the White House and Congress, so these high tariffs could not become law against the South's determined opposition.
And indeed, by 1830, the South did begin to strongly oppose high tariffs, and thus succeeded in getting them reduced to a low of just 17% in the 1850s.
Now much ruckus is made about the new Morrill Tariff of 1861, which raised rates from 17% back to 25%.
But this tariff bill was not so strongly opposed by the South when it was first introduced in 1860, and it only passed and got signed into law after Southern senators walked out of Congress and declared themselves an independent Confederacy!
Unmitigated bullsh**. Read the records of the Constitutional Convention and you'll find quotes like this:
Mr. Rutlidge. If the Convention thinks that N. C; S. C. & Georgia will ever agree to the plan, unless their right to import slaves be untouched, the expectation is vain. The people of those States will never be such fools as to give up so important an interest. He was strenuous agst. striking out the Section, and seconded the motion of Genl. Pinkney for a commitment.Read it. You'll find more like that. What you won't find is any New Englanders insisting that the slave trade be continued in the face of southern opposition to it.
Even better is the record of the ratification debates in North Carolina
Mr. J. M'Dowall wished to hear the reasons of this restriction.The Duke de Rochefoucault Liancourt, travelling in the United States in 1795, remarks:Mr. Spaight answered, that there was a contest between the Northern and Southern States; that the Southern States, whose principal support depended on the labor of slaves, would not consent to the desire of the Northern States to exclude the importation of slaves absolutely; that South Carolina and Georgia insisted on this clause, as they were now in want of hands to cultivate their lands; that in the course of twenty years they would be fully supplied; that the trade would be abolished then, and that, in the mean time, some tax or duty might be laid on.
Mr. M'Dowall replied, that the explanation was just such as he expected, and by no means satisfactory to him, and that he looked upon it as a very objectionable part of the system.
Mr. Iredell. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express sentiments similar to those of the gentleman from Craven. For my part, were it practicable to put an end to the importation of slaves immediately, it would give me the greatest pleasure; for it certainly is a trade utterly inconsistent with the rights of humanity, and under which great cruelties have been exercised. When the entire abolition of slavery takes place, it will be an event which must be pleasing to every generous mind, and every friend of human nature; but we often wish for things which are not attainable. It was the wish of a great majority of the Convention to put an end to the trade immediately; but the states of South Carolina and Georgia would not agree to it. Consider, then, what would be the difference between our present situation in this respect, if we do not agree to the Constitution, and what it will be if we do agree to it. If we do not agree to it, do we remedy the evil? No, sir, we do not. For if the Constitution be not adopted, it will be in the power of every state to continue it forever. They may or may not abolish it, at their discretion. But if we adopt the Constitution, the trade must cease after twenty years, if Congress declare so, whether particular states please so or not; surely, then, we can gain by it. This was the utmost that could be obtained. I heartily wish more could have been done. But as it is, this government is nobly distinguished above others by that very provision. Where is there another country in which such a restriction prevails? We, therefore, sir, set an example of humanity, by providing for the abolition of this inhuman traffic, though at a distant period. I hope, therefore, that this part of the Constitution will not be condemned because it has not stipulated for what was impracticable to obtain.
Mr. Spaight further explained the clause. That the limitation of this trade to the term of twenty years was a compromise between the Eastern States and the Southern States. South Carolina and Georgia wished to extend the term. The Eastern States insisted on the entire abolition of the trade. That the state of North Carolina had not thought proper to pass any law prohibiting the importation of slaves, and therefore its delegation in the Convention did not think themselves authorized to contend for an immediate prohibition of it.
Of course, "Nearly 20" is another way of saying "Less than 20." Let's be generous and call it 19. Now compare to the size of the American commercial fleet at the time. The American whaling fleet alone stood at about 200 ships. Records from the Quasi War with France show about 300 ships seized by the French at about that time, a number that was annoying but hardly a major slice of American shipping. Nineteen ships was barely a smidgen of the New England economy.
“Nineteen ships was barely a smidgen of the New England economy”
You are in denial mode. The New England economy was the slave trade. Nineteen ships in port....how many were in route to and from slave ports.
What he says is "Nearly 20 vessels from the harbors of the northern States are employed in the importation of negroes to Georgia and the West India isles." You're misreading your own source, either through a general lack of comprehension or from willful obtuseness.
Yes, but what if I had 105 ships and I just rounded down to 20? ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.